I believe the AMV community often outwardly prides itself on progressiveness and inclusivity in terms of issues like race, sexuality, or gender. But is this actually the case? Are supposedly "gender neutral" spaces within the AMV community actually gender neutral? Are there not large parts, like the convention scene or the Org itself, these very forums, which are subtly or not subtly problematic? I have my doubts. Very serious doubts.

Jokes about my "age" aside, I have traveled two intertwining roads as part of the AMV hobby. First as a member of mailing lists and IRC channels, and later primarily as part of this, the Org community. One road has been through time, while the other road has been through gender. At no time, not really, did one journey not progress along with the other. This has given me an interesting vantage point onto one of the biggest issues AMV spaces have always had: treating its women members with the respect they deserve.

History

Women have always been involved in "fan crap." AMVs are no exception. However, the earliest spaces, such as the mailing list, were almost entirely men. If women were involving themselves in AMVs in the mid 90s (and of course they were), they were doing it well and far away from these early spaces. I cannot remember a single woman (aside from myself, if you choose to count me) in the IRC channel where I met Quu and Phade and Waldo. I'm not sure if I was aware of a single woman editor until Kestrel who has been making the aforementioned "fan crap" since 1989. E.K. Weaver was perhaps my second identifiable "mainstream" woman editor. Her friendship (along with Brett's) has always been one I have valued highly. Yet, suffice it to say, without the need for citation, that women editors were few and far between.

Since the explosion of streaming via YouTube and the general popularity of anime, and thus anime music videos, we have seen a number of small women oriented AMV groups and spaces crop up. Some on purpose, like Yuricon's Yuri Studios, for example, which has a distinct feminist and pro-woman message even beyond the obvious connotations (and I will note the first panel I sat on at a convention, I sat next to the esteemed Erica Friedman). Others simply by coming into existence as a shared endeavor amongst friends who happen to all be girls or women with no particular message at all. However, many traditional and established spaces for AMVs, again like the convention scene and the Org, failed to adapt to this (at the time) new reality.

The Problem of Domination

Despite the number of outstanding, amazing, veteran women editors we have, these spaces are still overwhelminglymale dominated. And that is a problem.

Why? Notice I didn't say that these spaces are overwhelmingly male majority. Spaces need not be equally split in order to avoid domination. Ideally, the actual ratio of gender would be irrelevant to how everyone is treated. That word dominated is where the issue lies. When women enter into these spaces, they are met with a reaction which is, subtly or not, a form of domination. Either they meet resistance immediately, or they find that there is gatekeeping to be considered "acceptable," or they are treated as some sort of goddess, an editing queen, who is lavished with inappropriate and creepy attention. A given woman editor may even encounter, and probably will encounter, all three of these in the same space.

The purpose of this attention is:

Kevmaster wrote:

Talent, Skill, and Popularity

Our women regulars are amazing. They are talented and they are skilled. And that may lead some to believe that the recognition of talent and skill alone are defenses against misogyny. Unfortunately, this is not the case. If anything, the obvious skill and talent of women editors is the very reason they find themselves dealing with unwanted attention, either being attacked, or being idolised. This is not to say that reason is the same as cause. Women editors are not somehow responsible for their own mistreatment. That's "victim blaming" and the application of, "Well, if only she hadn't done X" as an excuse for misogynistic behavior is, itself, more misogyny.

But why would great talent and skill be the reason for such behavior? Because it is seen as threatening. It's human nature, and a key component of patriarchy, to see the inclusion and success of traditionally excluded groups as exclusion and even failure of members of the dominant group. That inclusion and success are somehow zero-sum concepts. "If she is more talented and skilled than I am, that means I am not as talented or skilled as I think I am, and this makes me uncomfortable." And so the inclination, often, is to react in a way which shows domination over the woman editor who has made him uncomfortable by one of the methods mentioned before. He may belittle her, he may demand further "evidence" of talent and skill, or he may inappropriately worship her, which sets her apart, as different, as Other, and thus not a part of the zero sum calculation he finds threatening. And the tricky part of all this? There's a pretty good chance the logic chain just articulated is entirely subconcious to him.

And women, we are not off the hook here, either. In pursuit of the "proof" which is requested and the idolisation, which even if creepy, is better than the belittling, we sometimes get mired into this "zero sum" fallacy ourselves. We join in; we try to be part of the group. We are equally capable of being totally shitty to each other in order to gain social currency. This is entirely unacceptable. Not only is it just terrible behavior, but it reenforces these conceptualisations already in the male dominated space. When we treat others the way we wish not to be treated, we actually give tacit permission for men to keep treating us this way. And women need not be involved directly to be supportive of these attitudes. They may merely choose to be silent. Men who are otherwise egalitarian, even self-identified feminists, also often choose to be silent.

Misogyny not called out is misogyny approved.

Why Me?

Some may be tempted to object to my authorship via an essentialist critique. Such objections may even come from women. This critique is basically that as my road marked "woman" has had a different starting place than the women editors I have spoken about and perhaps spoken for in this essay, I have bereft of authority or credibility. This, too, is a form of misogyny. This is not an essay which delves into those issues, although I may be happy to do so elsewhere. An extension of this critique may question how I have been the subject of or harmed by misogynistic tendencies in the community. Espousers of such a critique have somehow managed to ignore years of memes, jokes, and comments centering around my gender, and they have also apparently never read any IRC logs. Suffice it to say, this is very much a shared experience, and one I am frankly tired of experiencing.

The Challenge

This is a call to get out of our comfort zones. To challenge misogyny where and when we see it. To not participate in it in order to deflect it away from ourselves. To question our assumptions about what we may or may not have internalised. And to ultimately be nicer to each other.

Interesting read, and a good history lesson for those of us that weren't around in the early days.

Now at this point, in 2013, I think we're either past that-- or at least, moving past female equality in AMVs.Actually, the intro of VivifxAMV's Flow Tutorial on AMVlog hits this issue within the first 15 seconds (probably unintentionally, but hey it's there... and I think that says something.)

I still see bits of it crop up here and there; like with the classic gender-assumptions people make online: "Oh, He know's what I'm talking about," "He got the Aspect Ratio wrong," etc... but I think that broaches on a much broader issue: The Faceless Nature of The Internet. And it's just going to take time for society to get used to it.

If anything, the Org needs to work on it's inclusion of all sexual-orientations. Namely: The acronym R E A D F A G.It may seem harmless at a glance (and I used to say Gay and Fag all the time, jokingly ofc), but to make it into the guide... IMO, that's a black mark on the AMV Community; and part of the reason why I created AMVGuide. For those that don't know, the whole purpose of "That's so Gay!" and "ur a Faggot!" was created by homophobic extremists to exploit innocent people like you and me into spreading their anti-gay sentiment. Honestly, I'm a little surprised that the Org doesn't see that by now. In general, any slur on sexual-preference makes the org rather unwelcoming-- especially when that's the first thing new users are pointed to when they come to the Org. Whether intentional, or unintentional, not only does it target homosexual males; but it sends the message that it's okay for people to ridicule each other.

Last edited by AMVGuide on Sat May 25, 2013 11:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

AMVGuide wrote:Now at this point, in 2013, I think we're either past that-- or at least, moving past female equality in AMVs.Actually, the intro of VivifxAMV's Flow Tutorial on AMVlog hits this issue within the first 15 seconds (probably unintentionally, but hey it's there... and I think that says something.)

Heh, yeah, I made a similar tutorial a couple years back and it was met with two main comments: "I didn't know you were a girl" or "omg ur voice is so cute". Replay asked to upload it to that same AMVlog channel and the top comment is still about my voice. |:

Yeah, I find when it comes to tutorials, a lot of the time, people don't even say a word (despite being what everyone probably wants), so when it happens in an AMV tutorial, it's like a big thing. Even more-so when it's a girl

You know, I kind of resent the idea that I'm somehow being "dominated" and I think that's completely unfair to the vast majority of guys on the Org who are decidedly NOT misogynistic jerks. Obviously I can only speak for my own experience here, but I don't really ever feel like I've had a hard time making my voice be heard in this community. Have I been harassed for being a girl on the internet? Sure. But the majority of those incidents didn't occur here, and in all my years here, the ones that did were by some very specific guys just doing their best just to be assholes to me in any way they could. Is misogyny still a problem sometimes? Yes, certainly. Is it an excuse to personally target people who disagree with you for further future punishment? No, definitely not.

This is a quite interesting topic, also haven't seen that Read ErMaC & AbsoluteDestiny's Friendly AMV Guides thing... maybe I should start reading.>.< lol, forum auto links that!I'm not active or long enough in this community (or maybe I'm too dense), so I didn't quite see this (yet).I for myself try to imagine everyone on the internet as a Ditto.I'm trying to be equal to anyone, thought, I'm ashamed that I can't say that I'm always succeeding.

I sometimes joke about "there are no women on the internet", which by default is bullshit because that joke actually comes from the previous generation. Maybe I should change it to "there's no gender online".

That's that about me.Now a question comes to mind, I do have some friends that make women/kitchen/sandwich jokes from time to time, should I really call misogyny out (while I know they actually treat women with respect) and possible strain the friendship, or just remain silent and carry on?For one you could argue that I don't need those friends, but then again, friends don't come falling from the sky every day.Well, let me know what you think :>

AMVGuide wrote:Now at this point, in 2013, I think we're either past that-- or at least, moving past female equality in AMVs.

Well, if you mean as a pure numbers, game, I agree. However, changing the attitudes and behaviors against women editors is not something we're past. Not even remotely. There's still a lot of (please put a token on your feminism buzzword bingo sheet) patriarchy to be dismantled in the social, semiotic structure of the various AMV communities.

Actually, the intro of VivifxAMV's Flow Tutorial on AMVlog hits this issue within the first 15 seconds (probably unintentionally, but hey it's there... and I think that says something.)

Yes, I'd say unintentionally. Despite the comment about "girl power," I don't think she's intentionally articulating a feminist critique of AMV tutorials. But yes, the fact that she felt compelled to say it, even jokingly, is evidence of an atmospheric issue, that of the aforementioned male dominated community.

I still see bits of it crop up here and there; like with the classic gender-assumptions people make online: "Oh, He know's what I'm talking about," "He got the Aspect Ratio wrong," etc... but I think that broaches on a much broader issue: The Faceless Nature of The Internet. And it's just going to take time for society to get used to it.

Gendered language is an issue. I have that happen a lot in the few places I still sometimes post where I do not have a defined identity. I have, for better or worse, a defined identity here on the Org, and so perhaps have issues with pronouns and other gendered language for entirely different reasons. Other places my being a woman is part of my defined identity, and so when this happens, it is rare. This is generally in women-oriented or women only spaces, and thus the default is she, not he, and when a masculine pronoun is used, it illicits confusion. In places which are supposedly gender neutral, you're correct, male is conceptualised as default. This is actually the root of the issue, and gendered pronouns is only one of the many ways this conceptualisation of male as default is expressed.

As far as internet and society, I'm not a radical feminist; I'm an intersectional feminist. So I'm not quite as impatient as some of my radical feminist sisters when it comes to burning down the entire gender paradigm. That said, I'm no longer really that patient. It's 2013. Seneca Falls was 1848. I can understand the radical feminist frustration.

If anything, the Org needs to work on it's inclusion of all sexual-orientations.

I don't think it's a case of "if anything," but rather a case of recognising intersectionality in general. I didn't address issues of homophobia or racism, because I wanted to specifically address misogyny. That said, as an intersectional feminist, of course I care deeply about these issues. Women of color, lesbian women, bisexual women, and trans women (amongst others) will, of course, experience misogyny in subtly different, but experientially similar ways related to the intersections of misogyny with the racism, homophobia, and/or transphobia they also experience. A comprehensive challenge to shitty behavior on the Org and in other AMV communities would of course deal with all of the above, but such a challenge risks losing the forest for the trees.

aesling wrote:You know, I kind of resent the idea that I'm somehow being "dominated" and I think that's completely unfair to the vast majority of guys on the Org who are decidedly NOT misogynistic jerks.

Aesling, first, let me say, I really appreciate the response. One of my biggest worries when I wrote this was that I wouldn't get any responses. This was, unabashedly, a feminist critique, so rather than just address a list of problematic comments directed at women over the years, including me, I actually went into the feminist theory and used appropriate terminology. That said; this is not a mere academic exercise. I'm responding to a series of specific, but many, incidents over the years that I could compile, but I chose to take a different tact. But my challenge is real.

When I speak of the word "dominated" as in male dominated space or in the case of interactions in those spaces, I am not referring (always, although I could be) to intentional attempts to maintain the dominance of the space. I'm talking about a set of behaviors, often very subtle, whereby women are Othered which seem so natural to us that we can engage in it without recognising it for what it is. You're absolutely right, the vast majority of guys on the Org are decidedly not misogynistic jerks, as that implies knowing and willing participation in misogyny because it is misogyny. It would be very unfair, indeed, if that was what I was saying. But it's not. The problem with behavior patterns like misogyny (or racism, or homophobia, etc) is that they can be expressed by those whose conscious intent is something quite different, but that doesn't mean that an unintended misogynistic atmosphere is not harmful. It most certainly is. This is why I felt we needed to challenge ourselves, men and women, to identify and call out misogyny. If someone is not a misogynistic jerk, they'll say, "Hey, you're right. That was sort of a shitty comment. I'm sorry" and next time everyone involved in that conversation might be a little less inclined to say something similar in the future.

That said, there are examples often enough, I feel where individuals know they're being misogynistic, and they really don't care.

Obviously I can only speak for my own experience here, but I don't really ever feel like I've had a hard time making my voice be heard in this community.

Your experience is certainly valid. And I'm not saying there aren't women who are strong voices in the community. This is most definitely not the case. I tend to think that those voices tend to attract more misogyny just on the basis of being active. I think this is a matter of being very cognisant of others. What you may know is not misogyny (but which under feminist theory probably actually really still is misogyny), others outside of your context may not know. Take the most common example I see on these forums and in the IRC: the misogynistic joke.

Let's consider an example where you, me, and someone else, are in a conversation which is public and being read by or participated in by others, some of whom are other women, some of whom are men. The other person says something misogynistic to you. You and I know that it is an in-joke. That it's not "really" misogynistic. I jump in and add on my own comments supporting this misogynistic comment. Then we all have a good laugh, at least, on our own side of the computer screen. But what about those individuals who don't get the joke? What do they see, and more to the point, what do they perceive about the messages they receive. And this is where the subtle but real suppression of women's voices occur. If the perception is that the space, the community, tolerates misogynistic behavior, then it most certainly can, and in my opinion does, create a barrier for some women.

Hell, it creates a barrier for me. I'm simply, more and more, withdrawing from fandom spaces which are hostile to women and engaging in women oriented, sometimes explicitly feminist, and even women-only spaces. And that is problematic, too. Both for what it says about how I feel in this space and because of worries about locking myself into an echo chamber. And why such a withdrawal from the community? Because I think this is even more strongly the case when women-specific or women-oriented topics are discussed. I realise that this is an AMV community, not a women's issues space. But should women feel intimidated about starting a topic on an issue in editing from a women's or feminist perspective? I hope not. Should women feel intimidated about starting or participating in topics in areas like General Discussion which primarily affect women? Absolutely not, but I know for a fact, that is exactly what is happening.

Women should not have to think, "Oh hay, this probably isn't a safe space, I probably need to go to some women-oriented spaces to talk about X or Y." If any women are thinking that, we have a problem. If a response is, "Yeah well, you know, posting about that stuff on the Org is Not Gonna End Well," then we have a problem. It's a problem I think we can solve, but we must be vigilant.

Have I been harassed for being a girl on the internet? Sure. But the majority of those incidents didn't occur here, and in all my years here, the ones that did were by some very specific guys just doing their best just to be assholes to me in any way they could. Is misogyny still a problem sometimes? Yes, certainly.

Well, I feel there is a lot of harassment still going on in certain spaces. I feel that the IRC is particularly rife with it, and I saw some rather terrible stuff in the original Skype room, as well. Some of it, but certainly not all or even a majority of it, directed at me. I know for a fact that there are women editors who have been pushed out of these spaces by repeated and blatant displays of hostility towards them solely on the basis of them being women, and I really hope that they think of this thread as a safe space to air those grievances.

I've asked some of the moderating team for a heavy moderation hand, because my biggest fear is not that the discourse will be limited (as much as that worries me), but rather that there will be visceral attempts to derail it and prevent it from effecting actual change. There are indeed some very specific guys who are just assholes, but there are others who will take a serious topic and make light of it, turning the space into a place where serious discussion is no longer possible. It's hard not to be cynical, and so regardless of which type it is, I wanted to be ready for dealing with That Guy (which very well could be a woman, as expressed elsewhere).

Is it an excuse to personally target people who disagree with you for further future punishment? No, definitely not.

I'm not clear what you mean by this. Do you mean "you" as in me, Kionon, or do you mean "you" as in proverbial "you." I'm not going to try to address this until I know which one, because I want to make sure I am understanding what you are saying and addressing it in an appropriate way.

Impiety wrote:I'm not active or long enough in this community (or maybe I'm too dense), so I didn't quite see this (yet).

Welcome aboard!

I'm trying to be equal to anyone, thought, I'm ashamed that I can't say that I'm always succeeding.

For purposes of this discussion, which deals with being a decent human being, you absolutely are equal.

I sometimes joke about "there are no women on the internet", which by default is bullshit because that joke actually comes from the previous generation. Maybe I should change it to "there's no gender online".

I'm "an old" as we often say in other spaces where I participate in such topics. You're speaking about my generation. I wouldn't say there's no gender online, but I would say that there is increasingly intentional gender performances by many individuals on the internet. In my case, what you see is what you get, and for many women editors of whom I speak about, they have physical, in person experiences in AMV spaces, like conventions, and they also are fairly open about their gender identification in online spaces, like here, on the forums.

Now a question comes to mind, I do have some friends that make women/kitchen/sandwich jokes from time to time, should I really call misogyny out (while I know they actually treat women with respect) and possible strain the friendship, or just remain silent and carry on?

It is my contention that if they make women/kitchen/sandwich jokes, and are men, and are not specifically phrasing the joke to mock something within misogynistic structures, then you should really call them out, because they are not actually treating women with respect. Women are certainly capable of it too, but, nuance is a bit different there. I'd probably ask follow up questions.

You absolutely can make jokes about misogyny or really anything else dealing with oppression, but it has to be done with two thoughts in mind: does everyone in your audience, intended or not, know it is a joke? And is it mocking the source of the oppression? The biggest problem with these jokes from a comedy standpoint is that they're honestly just not that funny. However, from a feminist perspective the problem is that they may be misunderstood and that they reenforce existing attitudes by attacking the oppressed. Simply articulating the irony of being a "progressive" person dealing with "edgy" subjects is not good enough. Hipster misogynists, like hipster racists, need not apply.

Thanks for everyone's comments. I also appreciated Ileia's. And I look forward to reading more!

Is it an excuse to personally target people who disagree with you for further future punishment? No, definitely not.

I'm not clear what you mean by this. Do you mean "you" as in me, Kionon, or do you mean "you" as in proverbial "you." I'm not going to try to address this until I know which one, because I want to make sure I am understanding what you are saying and addressing it in an appropriate way.

I'm sorry for not being more clear there. Yes, I meant you specifically.

I'm really unclear who you think I am personally targeting for "future punishment" (I do not understand this) for disagreeing with me. With the exception of the Kevmaster image quote, I mentioned no single person by name, and I have not targeted anyone in specific. This is a problem for everyone; I am not exempt. I can go through my own history here of 4900 comments, and find you comments I probably made that would make me cringe now.

. Gender Neutral T__T .. ain't happening! Girls are seen as the one who gives birth and raises the kids. Governments see girls as money-spending-freeloaders. Smarts are waisted on teaching them because all they understand is Spend Spend Spend!!!!. The actual truth is "not allowed" because "we haven't seen the differance"!!!!

. Until TV and Radio display girls as useful instead of Play Pretties, its a man world.. Gays and Lesbiens are even lower than Black Males ( be glad your not one of them )

applying this theory to everything under the sun exposes it to be complete balderdash

good work

yes, because calling someone's elaborated views with unsubstantiated tl; dr is a solid invalidation strategy. If you're gonna expose something as bunk, put some thought into it. Hit-and-run hostility is not welcome here, consider this an official caution.

aesling wrote:Is it an excuse to personally target people who disagree with you for further future punishment? No, definitely not.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, actually. I think there's a pretty clear line between disagreement, political correctness, and obvious slurs and mistreatment. I don't think those should be allowed to pass any more than, say, racist slurs. From my perspective as a mod, I'd love it if people could keep the environment friendly for everybody. I'd be the the first to say that some behaviors need to be targeted, and I don't see downsides to that... is that really just an opinion thing?

I think all we can do is try to be more gender neutral, and calmly address these issues as they crop up.

The way I see it, there will always be exaggerated polarization of gender based on biological sex. It's simply more convenient to assign gender roles based on something arbitrary, and I'm pretty sure that's where it comes from: Females being the bearer of children naturally take on a more submissive role. As a result, that role gets exaggerated further and further until we have the social construction we have today. (Though it can occur the opposite too: I hear in Jamaica, women are the head of the household)

Kionon wrote:"...on our own side of the computer screen. But what about those individuals who don't get the joke?"

In Communication Theory, this is called Overshoot Interference, where someone recieves a signal that was not intended for them; and misinterpretation occurs. I agree that people need to avoid doing things like that-- and not just from a feminist standpoint. I see editors polarized on Effects vs No-Effects all the time; and it does come through in the way they communicate.

But again, all we can really do is calmly address these issues as they crop up. Preferrably keeping a timestamped list of such observations as they happen (well-documented evidence is crucial to building any sort of case towards real change). That way, we can notice patterns --with solid proof-- and actually work on solutions to be prepared for such situations as they arise.

aesling wrote:Is it an excuse to personally target people who disagree with you for further future punishment? No, definitely not.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, actually. I think there's a pretty clear line between disagreement, political correctness, and obvious slurs and mistreatment. I don't think those should be allowed to pass any more than, say, racist slurs. From my perspective as a mod, I'd love it if people could keep the environment friendly for everybody. I'd be the the first to say that some behaviors need to be targeted, and I don't see downsides to that... is that really just an opinion thing?

You honestly don't see anything wrong with calling certain users misogynistic, then specifically saying you're going to target them differently than you will other rule-breakers? Anyway, I apologize for not being more specific, I'm just honestly not sure what I'm allowed to share on that front.

I really do agree with AMVGuide in that you have to call people out on stuff as it happens, but it probably works better if we do it on a more personal level. If something offends you, talk to that person as another human being. I think most people will respond to being reasoned with, rather than talked down to.